This case involves a challenge by Shandong Rongxin Import & Export Co., Ltd., an exporter of pencils from China, to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in an antidumping duty administrative review on certain cased pencils from the PRC. The plaintiff argued that the review was improperly initiated because the requesting party, Dixon Ticonderoga Company, did not adequately demonstrate it was a domestic interested party as a U.S. manufacturer of pencils during the relevant period. Commerce determined that Dixon's certification as an interested party was sufficient and unsupported by contrary evidence on the record. The court remanded the matter to Commerce, finding that the agency failed to adequately explain how the certification addressed the plaintiff's arguments or to articulate a rational connection between the facts and its decision under the substantial evidence standard. The court did not reach the issue of whether Shandong deserved a separate rate.
The case involved Kyocera Solar challenging the International Trade Commission's injury determination in an antidumping investigation concerning crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from Taiwan and China. Kyocera contended that solar modules assembled in Mexico from Taiwanese cells should not be treated as Taiwanese imports and sought a separate negligibility analysis. The court denied Kyocera's motion for judgment on the agency record, affirming the Commission's decision. The court reasoned that the Department of Commerce had defined the scope of the investigation to include such modules as subject merchandise from Taiwan, binding the Commission to evaluate imports accordingly, and found that import volumes exceeded statutory negligibility thresholds.
The case concerned an importer's challenge to U.S. Customs and Border Protection's denial of a protest regarding duty calculations on two entries of pencils at the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach. After two initial protests were denied, the importer filed a third protest on the same entries, which Customs rejected first as untimely and later as non-protestable. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a), reasoning that the third protest was invalid under the one-entry-one-protest rule of 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(1) because only the first timely protest on an entry may be treated as valid, and subsequent protests contesting prior denials are not permitted.
The case involved the United States seeking civil penalties against Jeanette Pacheco for fraudulently undervaluing imported dried peppers from Mexico under section 592 of the Tariff Act of 1930. Pacheco had allowed a customs broker to use her name for entries declaring a low value, failed to provide supporting documentation when requested by Customs and Border Protection, and did not redeliver the goods after they were refused entry by the FDA due to adulteration. After Pacheco defaulted by not responding to the complaint, the Court of International Trade granted the government's motion for default judgment, awarding $2,651,312.18 in penalties based on the domestic value of the merchandise due to aggravating factors like providing misleading information and failing to comply with record demands, with no mitigating factors present.
The case concerned the proper tariff classification of imported wooden door stiles and rails consisting of a pine cap laminated to thin poplar layers. Plaintiff Composite Technology International challenged U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s denial of its protest, arguing the goods qualified for duty-free entry under HTSUS heading 4412 as plywood, veneered panels, or similar laminated wood. Customs had classified the merchandise under heading 4421 as other articles of wood subject to a 3.3% duty. The Court of International Trade reviewed the matter de novo on cross-motions for summary judgment and held that the products did not meet the structural requirements of heading 4412 because their thin layers and lack of a block, lath, or batten core disqualified them as similar laminated wood or veneered panels. The court therefore granted summary judgment to the government, confirming classification under the residual provision 4421.90.97.
This case involves a challenge by Appvion, Inc. to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in the fourth administrative review of an antidumping duty order on lightweight thermal paper from Germany. Appvion disputed Commerce's findings that certain sales by the German producer Koehler were within the ordinary course of trade and that adverse facts available were not warranted, citing Koehler's prior fraudulent transshipment scheme from the previous review. The court denied Appvion's motion for judgment on the agency record and affirmed Commerce's determinations. The reasoning was that Koehler fully disclosed the transshipment information in this review period, Commerce verified the data, and there was no basis to apply adverse facts available as in the prior review or other cases.
In this case from the U.S. Court of International Trade, Customs and Border Protection sued Rupari Food Services and its surety American Casualty to recover civil penalties under Section 592 of the Tariff Act of 1930 for alleged violations involving the importation and sale of crawfish, as well as unpaid duties under customs bonds. Rupari moved to dismiss the complaint post-answer for failure to state a claim and lack of particularity in pleading fraud, while Customs sought leave to amend its complaint. The court denied the motion to dismiss in full, finding that the allegations of gross negligence and negligence were adequately pleaded and plausible under the applicable standards, and granted Customs leave to amend in part but denied it in part. The decision rested on the conclusion that Rupari had sufficient notice of the claims and that the complaint met the requirements of Twombly and Rule 12 standards when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
The case involves U.S. Customs and Border Protection suing Rupari Food Services, Inc., a Florida company that imported and sold crawfish, to recover civil penalties under Section 592 of the Tariff Act of 1930 for alleged violations involving false statements or negligence in import declarations, along with a related claim against surety American Casualty Co. for unpaid duties under bonds. After Rupari answered and moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of particularity in pleading fraud, Customs opposed and sought leave to amend its complaint. The Court of International Trade denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the complaint plausibly alleged claims under the applicable standards, that pre-penalty notices sufficiently apprised Rupari of the negligence allegations, and that fraud pleading requirements were met where applicable; it granted Customs leave to amend in part and denied it in part.
This case involved a challenge by Chinese exporters and a U.S. importer to the Department of Commerce's final results on remand in an antidumping duty administrative review of magnesia carbon bricks from China. Commerce had applied a total adverse facts available rate after the exporters refused to supply requested sales data. The Court of International Trade sustained Commerce's remand determination, holding that the agency's choice of a secondary source rate was reasonable, that the rate had been corroborated to the extent practicable, and that the burden of building the record rests primarily on interested parties rather than the agency. The court rejected arguments that the rate was unsupported or that Commerce's explanations amounted to improper post-hoc rationalizations.
This case involves a challenge by Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd. to the U.S. Department of Commerce's decision in an antidumping duty administrative review of aluminum extrusions from China. Commerce collapsed three affiliated companies—Guang Ya, Zhongya, and Xinya—into a single entity and determined that the entity was part of the China-wide rate because two of the companies failed to respond to questionnaires. The court reviewed whether this collapsing and rate assignment was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law. The court affirmed Commerce's determination, reasoning that treating the companies separately could permit manipulation of the antidumping order and that the collapsed entity must submit complete data for all members to qualify for a separate rate.
The case concerned whether Fedmet Resources Corporation's magnesia alumina carbon bricks fell within the scope of existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders on magnesia carbon bricks from China and Mexico. Following a Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that the bricks were outside the orders' scope, the Department of Commerce issued a redetermination excluding them. Defendant-intervenors challenged the redetermination and sought further proceedings to refine definitions and testing methods, but the Court of International Trade sustained Commerce's action. The court found the redetermination fully consistent with the appellate decision and rejected the need for additional remand.
The case concerned whether nails contained in toolkits imported by Target Corporation fell within the scope of an antidumping duty order on nails from China. The court sustained the Department of Commerce's final redetermination results, which found the nails subject to the order after examining the nails themselves without regard to the toolkits. Commerce reached this conclusion under protest following a prior remand, and the court held that the determination complied with the remand order and was supported by substantial evidence. The court declined to consider Target's objections because Target had failed to raise its arguments during the administrative proceedings, thereby not exhausting its remedies.
This case involved Chinese exporters of magnesia carbon bricks and a U.S. importer challenging the Department of Commerce's final results in a 2010 countervailing duty administrative review, where Commerce applied adverse facts available to assign a 262.80% duty rate after the companies and Chinese government failed to respond to questionnaires seeking sales, export, and benefit data. The plaintiffs moved for judgment on the agency record, arguing that the rate was unreasonable and not properly corroborated. The United States Court of International Trade denied the motion. The court held that the non-cooperation justified adverse facts available under the statute and that Commerce had corroborated the rate to the extent practicable using secondary information from prior proceedings, as no company-specific data was available due to the lack of responses.
This case involved Chinese exporters and a U.S. importer challenging the Department of Commerce's final results in an antidumping duty administrative review covering magnesia carbon bricks from China for 2010-2011. Plaintiffs contested Commerce's decision to include sales of related magnesia alumina carbon bricks and its use of adverse facts available along with the corroboration of the resulting rate. The court sustained Commerce's determinations on all issues except the corroboration of the adverse facts available rate. It remanded the case so that Commerce could reconsider that aspect in light of the Federal Circuit's intervening decision in Fedmet Resources Corp. v. United States and provide an explanation based on the administrative record with input from the parties.
This case before the U.S. Court of International Trade involves the United States as plaintiff suing American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pennsylvania, Rupari Food Services, Inc., and William Vincent Stilwell over matters related to imported crawfish products. The defendants filed a joint motion to strike the plaintiff's combined motion for summary judgment and opposition to their motion to dismiss, citing references to new and undisclosed information, or alternatively to stay the summary judgment motion until the motion to dismiss was decided. The court denied the motion to strike, reasoning that striking is an extraordinary remedy requiring flagrant disregard of court rules which was not shown here, but granted the stay to first resolve the pending motion to dismiss, and set a schedule for refiling the opposition and any future summary judgment motions.
The case involved JBLU, Inc. challenging U.S. Customs and Border Protection's issuance of Notices to Mark and/or Redeliver for seventeen shipments of jeans imported from China, which featured embroidered markings such as "C'est Toi Jeans USA," "CT Jeans USA," and "C'est Toi Jeans Los Angeles." The court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and granted defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that the merchandise did not qualify for the less stringent marking rules of 19 C.F.R. § 134.47 because trademark applications were not filed until after some entries, and the "Made in China" labels failed to satisfy the proximity, location, and size requirements of 19 C.F.R. § 134.46 relative to the U.S. references. Customs' interpretation of its regulations was accorded substantial deference as not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the rules.
This case involves a motion by Papierfabrik August Koehler SE to amend the court's prior judgment upholding the Department of Commerce's final results in the third administrative review of antidumping duties on lightweight thermal paper from Germany. Commerce had rejected Koehler's corrected sales data and applied total adverse facts available due to incomplete questionnaire responses stemming from employee misconduct that concealed home market sales. The court denied the motion, holding that Koehler failed to demonstrate manifest errors of law or fact in the original decision. The court reasoned that it had already considered and rejected Koehler's arguments regarding the lack of senior management involvement, the scope of the misconduct's impact on data reliability, and the use of prior review data for corroboration, and declined to relitigate those issues under USCIT Rule 59.
This case involved Samsung challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce's calculation of countervailing duties on large residential washers imported from Korea, specifically regarding tax credits Samsung received under Korean law for research and development. The court reviewed Commerce's remand results, which found that Samsung received a disproportionately large share of these tax benefits compared to other companies. Commerce supported this by showing Samsung accounted for a high percentage of the total credits among top recipients and that the credits reduced Samsung's tax liability far more than for others. The court sustained Commerce's determination, holding that it was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.
In this case, General Mills challenged a U.S. Customs and Border Protection ruling that its imported frozen Brussels sprouts and butter sauce product, made with Belgian Brussels sprouts, did not qualify for NAFTA duty-free treatment as a Mexican-originating good. The company sought review directly in the Court of International Trade under the court's residual jurisdiction provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). The court granted the government's motion to dismiss, holding that jurisdiction was unavailable under § 1581(i) because General Mills could have protested the ruling and obtained review under the more specific provision of § 1581(a), and that route was not shown to be manifestly inadequate. The court also declined to transfer the case, finding that the availability of § 1581(a) jurisdiction made transfer inappropriate.
The case involved a challenge by Mark David and consolidated plaintiffs to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in the seventh administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China. Commerce had determined that mandatory respondent Shanghai Maoji failed to provide complete responses to questionnaires, revoked its separate rate status, and applied the PRC-wide entity rate of 216.01% based on adverse facts available from a prior review. The Court of International Trade denied the motion for judgment on the agency record, holding that Commerce's selection and corroboration of the rate were supported by substantial evidence and consistent with statutory requirements.